UKC

I was at Burbage North yesterday. Now I have more or less done all the easy climbs there so am at the filling-in-the-gaps stage which means you end up looking at routes previous ignored. I therefore noticed Agnostic's Arete

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=10540

Graded VS 5a, from what I could see, it was a solo above a bad landing. Now I am an E1 climber on a good day but wouldn't really attempt a climb like this so wondered what the point of grading it VS was? After all, hardly any VS climbers are likely to ever climb it let alone E1 climbers. Surely a simple technical grade or highball V-grade is more appropriate?

Any thoughts?

In reply to EeeByGum:
To me a VS 5A should have bomb proof gear, an Ex 5A on the other hand would have much less..

In reply to EeeByGum:

The greatest strength of the Adjectival grade is that it can cope with literally any style or nature of climb.

The greatest weakness of the Adjectival grade is that for some types of climb (e.g. highball starts) it's often horribly misused.

That said, highballs are definitely something which some people feel much more comfortable with than others, so it's often difficult to reach overall consensus on a grade.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Maybe the 5a move is really low down leaving only very easy climbing to finish? There for someone climbing 5a they would be able to manage to hard move but just need to keep it together for the easier bit to finish.

I understand your grip about the grading being off though, but the grading system isn't perfect. Maybe for solo routes just the tech grade should be given and a few notes in the description as to how sustained the crux is and how high above deck it occurs?

In reply to cuppatea:

VS 5a could also be a poorly protected Severe with a 5a start.

In reply to EeeByGum:
What does the guidebook say? Or is it a wordless Topo?

In reply to mlmatt:

I don't see how dropping the adjectival grade gains you anything? If it's properly applied then it still gives you information about the an unprotected route (like how sustained it might be, where the crux is etc.).

The route in question looks/sounds like a 5a move at the start, then easier ground above, which would be fine at VS 5a. If it isn't, then that's a problem with the application of the system, not the grade system itself.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Dave Gregory and Clive Jones were out climbing one day and got separated. When DG caught up with Clive, the latter explained he had just done a new route to which Dave declared he didn't believe it!


Chris

In reply to john arran:

I think highball lower grade trad sandbags are still quite common and try to out them where possible on Offwidth (things like the VS 5a, Fumf at Rivelin which I'd say is HVS). I just don't think this was one of them. I thought the first moves were 4c then the climbing eased: VS all the way.

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Sorry, my idea was not to bother with the adjective grade is the climb is a unprotected solo because, well at the end of the day you can't fall off. Highball boulder problems just get thier technical grade and a note to say they are highball, there isn't a need for an adjective garde. I guess you'll probably be using pads thogh right

In reply to mlmatt:
>

Really? Wouldn't you rather know when you set off if it was VS 5a or E2 5a?


Chris

In reply to lowersharpnose:

Wall End Slab at Stanage Plantation is the same. 5a start, then virtually no gear during the traverse but largely severe climbing.

In reply to EeeByGum:

I'm not sure about the grade of this - it's the same as many of the small routes at Burbage North. They are basically highballs, so the trad grading system doesn't fit them too well. I don't remember finding it too bad, but when I have done it, I was local to Burbage, and regularly used to boulder and solo there. It's not really VS as it's not really a trad route. I'm not sure what it is though, or what grade to give it.

Pickpocket next to it, however, I think is desperate and that gets VS 4c. I just can't do/commit to the top out.

In reply to mlmatt:

It is possible to fall of something without pads and not die, you know...
It does make something of a difference if the crux is at 3ft or 30 ft, which the adjectival grade should give you some clue about.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Wall end Slab is way more complex the start is a short boulder problem if over a grade harder. There is gear above and at the start and end of the traverse. Its nothing like AA.

In reply to Monk:

I though PickPocket was the same grade (both VS 4c).

The only VS I can think of at Burbage north that I think should be HVS is Always Another One (although I have about 5 obscurities left to climb)... pretty rare for a big gritstone crag that I havent written the script! There are VS climbs that I think should be HS: Leaning Buttress Direct, Phillipa Buttress (with big cams), Barry Manilow, Greeny Crack. Plus HVS climbs that are easier than AA and PP (and plenty of other short bold VS routes like Green Slab, The Busker, Jimmy Riddle, The Happy Slapper): Knight's Move, Wollock and Stomach Traverse (with monster cams) and a super soft touch E1...hardly anyone used to know about this but seems the secret is out now.

In reply to EeeByGum:
Thankee. So it's one of those climbs that make indoor 7a climbers ask "what trade grade is equivalent to 7a on plastic?"

In reply to EeeByGum:

Why change a well established grading system because of one (rogue?) climb?

In reply to EeeByGum:

Are you trolling, or just prone to ridiculously hyperbolic statements?

In reply to victim of mathematics:


Why is it ridiculous? If you are a VS climber, surely you should be able to climb any VS? I am an E1 climber but wouldn't attempt to climb this climb. Therefore, why bother grading it VS, even if the grade for the actual climbing is about right. There is no gear and a bad landing which make it beyond the psychological climbing ability of many.

I could also sight California Arete as another example of a weirdly graded climb. I don't think there are many E1 climbers who would attempt it so why bother grading it E1?

In reply to Offwidth:

Which is the E1 you think is soft? Could it be Bilbery wall? I'm pretty sure it was VS when I did it. It's certainly nowhere near E1.

And do you mean Leaning Wall direct (not buttress, which is at Stanage)? For me, that is yet another route that doesn't really fit with a trad grade. It's a boulder problem with a S finish.

Out of interest - how do you feel about Rhapsody in Green? Apart from being a bit rubbish, I always thought it was lethal at VS.

In reply to Offwidth:


I've probably soloed Pickpocket a dozen times, but never done Agnostics Arete - looked at it a few times, but always put off by the bad landing and the fact that the starting moves seem tough and committing.
Was very suprised to see it's now graded to VS - sure it always used to be HVS 5a.

Is it one of those which is easy once you know how ?
Mind you the final move on Pickpocket must be scary if you don't know what's there....

In reply to EeeByGum:


Maybe you need to reasses your grade, then

In reply to EeeByGum:

Becasue that's how the grading system works rather than assuming climbers' ability to da all routes of a given grade

In reply to EeeByGum:

Classy situations in California goes at E2 5a.
And obviously for poor protection on easy climbing Californian Arête at E1 4c is better known than its neighbour.

In reply to EeeByGum:

If you are a VS climber, surely you should be able to climb any VS?

I think this is where you are going wrong.

ps Cite, not sight.

In reply to lowersharpnose:
Agreed. I consider myself an E2 climber. To me that means that I can reasonably expect to get up most E1's, E2's and a fair few E3's. For me it's more relevant to consider the technical grade so I know I can't climb 6a, usually get up 5b and most of the time get up 5c's. it also depends upon the style of the climbing but for me UK grades work.

Al

In reply to EeeByGum:

If you won't attempt this, then I put to you that maybe you aren't a VS climber, let alone an E1 climber by your own definition. The phrase "VS climber" is very subjective, so debating it doesn't really tell us anything.


By way of illustration, I'd describe myself as a solid VS leader, who leads E1 on a good day. I've never led any E2s, but I have every intention of soloing California Arête next time I'm in't quarries.

Perhaps the problem is that you're letting your apparent dislike of bold routes colour your perception of how grades work, rather than the problem being the actual grades themselves?

In reply to victim of mathematics:


I don't care that much - this is only a debate. I am not trying to figure out how my inner most feelings work. It just occurred to me that VS 5a was a silly grade for a climb that to me was completely off limits for me (as a solid VS and above leader) due to the intrinsic danger of breaking a leg or more if I came a cropper half way up. The difficulty of the climb is perhaps spot on, but the danger element seemed way.

In reply to EeeByGum:

The silliness (or otherwise) of the grade depends entirely in the distribution of the difficulty, and you're right that the landing is a factor. As I think I said before, if the hard moves are off the floor, and it's 4a/b above, then VS 5a is correct. If the 5a move is high enough up that a fall would have nasty consequences, then you're right, VS 5a is wrong.

Whether a climb is or isn't "Off limits" to you is not really relevant to the guidebook grade though. If your perceptions of what is and isn't justifiable danger differ from the average climber (as they appear to) then you will find yourself out of kilter with the system. I accept that a crimpy E1 slab will feel a lot easier than a smeary VS, or a 'classic' grit HVS crack to me, but that doesn't mean that the grades are wrong.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with weaknesses - I suspect the Victim has hit the nail on the head.

I don't like bold routes, but that is a weakness with me - not the grading system.

In reply to victim of mathematics:


I suspect that "the problem" is that different people have very different attitudes to unprotected climbing above nasty landings. I tend to side with EeeByGum's camp, in that there are many relatively lowly graded climbs of that sort which I wouldn't attempt (at least not onsight); I do admit to being a wimp.

For example, I was recently on the Roaches Skyline, and had led an E2 (Topaz) without problem, and was thinking of ending the day on a starred VS 4c (Karabiner Slab I think). However, while the 4c looked reasonable, it was obvious that there was absolutely no gear. Delicate, smeary 4c slab climbing, 6 or 7 metres above a poor landing, is not my idea of VS.

In reply to EeeByGum: Don't forget most of these grades came into being when there was no protection to speak of so a fall from 60 feet was always going to be more serious than one from 6 feet and the routes graded accordingly. The grades for most routes need to be viewed in that context even though there are still anomalies. The biggest one of all to me is a route like Hargreaves Original at Stanage that used to get Severe or H.Severe, can't remember which, with no gear at all now gets VS with Friends for protection.

Al

In reply to EeeByGum:

The Forest of Dean CC guide had quite a good grading system for grading unprotectable climbs based on tech grade and height. The area is Sandstone rather than grit I know, plus location of crux and landings still factor, but still a useful system of grading.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'm not familiar with the route in question, but I think you'd struggle to find any sensible person who thought that 4c smearing at 6 or 7 metres with no gear was really VS. I note that Offwidth's website suggests HVS 4c.

Whaup Edge at Eastby is another one. VS 4b, but if you come of the crux you're going to end up in an ambulance.

Just because there are places that the grading system is being applied badly, doesn't mean that the problem is with the system.

I have no knowledge of Agnostic's Arete (although I dare say I must have walked past it countless times), so I can't comment on whether it really is VS or not. However, whether it is or not, the OP's impression of how grades are supposed to work seems a little off.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Maybe you're not a VS climber, then?

In reply to EeeByGum: the voting shows you to be in the minority. Must be easy enough up there, everyone else seems alright with it at VS..

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Hargreaves original: I was party to some banter with a chap who was just about to do that who said, to a member of his party with the voice of someone in the Mallory pose, "Haha, I've told you no cams below E1!"

He got to the top and we had a chuckle together when I asked him how many cams he'd placed. 5 or 6 I think!

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Karabiner Slab is a good 5 metres off the ground for a nose grating mantel one move above which the first [very good] gear arrives. It made me think when I was on it once and made me wonder why I'd put myself in that position again the second time I did it. It's a worthwhile route though and I felt fairly graded at VS 4c.

In reply to EZ:

So there's an unprotected 4c move at 5m, but you think VS is fair?

Really?

In reply to jacobjlloyd:

Everyone who lived to vote...

In reply to victim of mathematics:


So how should he describe himself if he were to apply your rules?

I don't think choosing to walk away from certain routes that don't meet a sufficient reward/risk ratio says very much about someone's climbing besides the fact they're comfortable doing what they do and making their own judgements. If EeeByGum says he's a 'VS climber' or an 'E1 climber' I'd be happy to take either of those at face value.

What does this make me, I'm sure I've walked away from routes as easy as Severe in a style that doesn't suit. Am I a 'VDiff climber'? Probably (until I walk away from one of those) but while it fit's the 'rules' it doesn't really say much about how or what I usually climb.

FWIW I once upon a time would have had it on the list as a should-do experience but these days I wouldn't touch California Arete with someone else's bargepole. Not because I think it's too hard or too dangerous but because I don't enjoy that kind of route. I hope you do enjoy it, it looks spectacular that's for sure.

jk

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Yes. The slab is not too steep and I disagree about how poor the landing is. I think it is OK for ankles on landing but probably needs a belayer to be anchored in case of a stumble through not scarily steep heather (if I recall correctly). The climbing is probably easy 4c too. It's just that for a VS climber the nose grater mantel is a bit nervy.

In reply to jkarran:


I feel you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I don't really care how anybody describes themself. EeeByGum can call himself a VS or an E1 leader and I wouldn't take issue.

What matters was his argument that he was a self-declared VS leader, but he didn't want to climb the route in question, hence it couldn't be VS.

In reply to victim of mathematics:


Maybe I have.

I replied to you but was frustrated by other people's less nuanced responses as well. The default position of many posters appears to be to question EBG's experience and/or ability rather than to consider how well a typical UK grade describes something like this.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

The issue is not really of ability - its the assumptions that a)just because someone is an "x" climber they should be able to wander up any route at "x-1" grade and b) non protected routes can't have lower grades (remembering that VS really shouldn't be considered a lower grade in any case)

In reply to GrahamD:

Huh? On the scale of Moderate to E11, VS is definitely a lower grade.

In reply to Monk: On the scale of the average climber E11 does not exist and VS is something to aspire to.

Al

In reply to Monk:

VS is the bottom of the intermediate grade range (or at least it was when I aspired to it) at which you could expect to find proper routes with serious climbing.

In reply to Hephaestus:


So how do I describe my ability, if I am able to comfortably lead all VS climbs apart from climbs like this which have a decided broken ankle air about them.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Like me, then - you probably are a VS climber. I'd call anyone who can do 95% + of routes at a grade x, randomly chosen, a "grade x climber".

The point is that I wouldn't necessarily be expected to do 100% of routes at any grade. For instance there is at least one moderate I can't do because I'm too big (fat) to squeeze through a small gap. It doesn't mean it isn't moderate just because I, as a self proclaimed VS leader, can't do it.

In reply to EeeByGum:


What's most interesting about this for me is the fact that you would almost certainly have cruised the route if you had tried it. You simply chose not to.

I can certainly understand why, and as I said previously I don't think that the trad grading system really fits routes like this very well. They are basically highballs. Some days you feel confident and breeze up them, some days you feel more cautious.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Well, you would be better at cracks than me and less confident of your ability on easier ground.

A similar route is Shock Horror Slab. It used to be E1 6b (I think it is now given E2 6b), but it is the same sort of beast as the VS 5a you describe. A hard start followed by easier climbing ~5a to the top, the top in this case is higher than that Burbage North route.

In reply to GrahamD:


He's not saying he couldn't stroll up it (he probably could), he appears to be saying it looks sufficiently bold off the floor that he didn't even want to pull on. It's hardly unreasonable to at least question grade in that situation surely?

Maybe the answer is simple: 'It's not that bad, there's a hidden hold' or 'It's in balance once you step up and the moves are secure' etc etc but that's not what I'm seeing.

jk

In reply to Monk:

Rhapsody in Green is artificial as you have to bypass the lethal bit at the top ! Unless of course you are a giant!?

I think there are several issues going on here. Firstly some people won't acknowledge how comparatively rubbish they are at a grade on some route styles and fail to adjust accordingly (I'm rubbish often enough on bold VS even though some low extreme slabs oddly suit me). Hence, they struggle to move beyond their own experience and extrapolate to what a grade will feel like on averege to the climbing population. Secondly people often havent done enough of the other climbs on a crag to compare. Thirdly we all have bad days and bad attempts; to get an idea of the grade you need to have climbed a route reasonably well. Forthly grades on grit do change with temperature and humidity; friction climb grades are not for hot sweaty days.

I agree with Victim on the route in question as I know a fair few VS leaders, some pretty inexperienced, who have led it, with various degrees of fear resulting. Hence, EeByGums thesis that no VS leader would attempt such a climb is clearly nonsense. Chris is right that it was HVS once but that was two guidebooks back. Whatever we argue the evidence suggests its obviously close to the HVS border (its not a standard midgrade VS) and given the variance with adjectival grade near half will have an 'HVS like' experience.

In reply to jkarran:

The answer to the original question is in the guidebook description:

"Believe it or not the balancy arete eases with height."

It is obviously an anomolous grade, explained in the guide. But for some reason the OP is continuing to overlook this.

In reply to Offwidth:

That may explain why... it doesn't feel right to bypass it, but it doesn't feel VS to go straight up!

In reply to jkarran:


That surely means not being able to stroll up it, doesn't it ?


You mean question the grade of a route you haven't even tried ?

In reply to Monk:

Obvious when you know why !

I forgot the counter-point problems on grades. Firstly some people clearly adjectivally grade mainly on the tech grade almost irrespective of protetcion: these people are a scourge as they destroy the utility of the wonderful UK grading system. Our friend above with unprotected 4c highish on Karibiner Slab being fine at VS is a good example. Also climbers operating well within themselves at a grade can inadvertantly undergrade on bold routes as they feel much easier than similar graded well protected beasts.

In reply to Monk: I'm going to be honest and contentious. IMO that does not warrant being graded as a climb it's more like a boulder problem.

Al

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

That was one of the points being made by the OP - which is a valid point of view IMO.

In reply to GrahamD: That then begs the question when does a boulder problem become a climb? and I can see that sparking off as many arguments as the grading debates.

Al

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I'd say its a climb: the bottom section isn't that much harder that the top becomes a breeze. I still think its only toughish 4c to start in good conditions then VS 4b to VS 4a above. We graded most borderline routes with joint grades in the new series BMC guides.

In reply to Offwidth: Well it's an extremely personal thing but I couldn't be bothered uncoiling my rope for that.

Al

In reply to Monk:

On Agnostic's Arete. If I remember I on-sighted this and felt it "ok", in the sense that you make a couple of moves up, with a flat landing on the right that you can jump off on, and from there you have one more boulder-problem move (which you can decide whether to go for or jump off) before easy ground. On the other hand if you did fall off that move you could be in trouble; I felt it was "ok", but wouldn't have objected to HVS.

On Karabiner Slab, the landing is steep grass/heather. You may be ok, but it would be very easy to turn an ankle and break it. You could also roll several more metres down this steep ground unless caught by a belayer. The route is 10m long; the first gear is about 2/3rds height, and the climbing is smeary/friction 4c (not on jugs or crimps). I won't attempt to grade it, since I was too chicken to try it, but I don't think it looked VS!

On a similar topic, the nearby Bad Sneakers is ludicrous at E2, being totally unprotected, tenuous 5c slab climbing at a similar height and landing to Karabiner Slab above. On top-roping it I thought maybe E4 5c.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
I agree with that, but that doesn't mean it's a boulder problem - for a start a mat isn't going to be much use. It's the landing that's always put me off, and not convinced it's only 4c either (though have to admit it's a few years since I've looked at it)

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Of course.. why uncoil your rope for what's effectively a solo !;-?

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Presumably you give the grade according to the style in which the climb is most likely to be tackled ?

In reply to GrahamD:

Routes don't always need ropes though: A highball onsight solo of an unprotected climb sans mats gets the trad grade; with prepractice the headpoint grade.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's pretty much my experience on it. I think this is just one of those Burbage North routes. The crag is covered in small, virtually unprotectable routes/highballs with trad grades. Whatever they system they should be graded with, I think that there is an internal consistency with the grading at Burbage North - and there are loads of VS-E1 routes that are quite scary to boulder and not really trad routes. It's one of the quirks of the place that I love.

In reply to Offwidth:

Agreed that an unroped solo is not necessarily the same as a boulder problem and the distinction isn't always obvious - which I uppose is Al's point - maybe its also to do with the proximity to other boulder problems or to other routes ? Why is Archangel a route and careless Torque a boulder problem ? These days, though, with the widespread use of mats, I'd have thought that anything <8m with no protection has to be a serious contender for a bouldering grade.

In reply to GrahamD:

I disagree, for starters Careless Torque is much less serious for climbers operating at its grade than Archangel. As you go up the grades boulderers develop way more tolerance for highball falls leaving a gulf to someone operating around V0 (HS/VSish highball); below V0- there is almost no such thing as highball boulder problems in the Uk. IMHO it all depends on the line and the landing and a little bit on the grade (way more leway for highballs on 5b than on 3b). I'm more than happy for climbers to use mats at any grade on short trad routes as long as they are honest about the style of their ascent, recognising the grade is for onsight, matless.

In reply to Offwidth:

So it comes back to what I said earlier - grade primarily according to the style the climb is most likely to be attempted.

In reply to Offwidth:

Haha. In all the arguments I've caused and suffered on UKC nobody has ever described me as part of a scourge.

I understand grading just fine thanks. Have you done Karabiner Slab? If you put that at HVS then consider yourself part of the scourge chum........p!

In reply to EZ:

(that was meant humorously!)

In reply to GrahamD:

So you grade it V0- 4c, or f3(+?). How does that help anyone?

In reply to Offwidth:

Personally, in this case I think 4c or 5a is a better grade for this climb. The VS / HVS part is meaningless because there is no gear. The consensus seems to be that it isn't a boulder problem or even highball boulder problem so a V grade is probably over kill.

My opinion for what it's worth.

Good to see some people feel it isn't too bad. Might look a bit closer next time. After all, it is now a gaping whole in an otherwise ticked section of guidebook.

In reply to EeeByGum:

But if you just give unprotected route a technical grade then you don't know where the crux is, or how sustained the difficulties are.

Can you not grasp that the adjectival grade tells you about more than just the boldness, or are you still being wilfully wrong?

In reply to EeeByGum:

The consensus (of the guidebook team of at least, which I was a part) is that its a short unprotected VS with a hard start which is exactly why it got the grade.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

The biggest one of all to me is a route like Hargreaves Original at Stanage that used to get Severe or H.Severe, can't remember which, with no gear at all now gets VS with Friends for protection.

Another 50/60's classic now VS with modern pro at Stanage is Fairy Steps, traditionally Severe it is now VS 4a in the new guide even with the suggestion to take along some modern 'micro' protection.
Still a great classic though

In reply to GrahamD:


8m, You must be kidding! When is the last time you fell 8m onto mats?

jk

In reply to jkarran:

OK 6m then it doesn't matter in the context of an unprotected climb - whatever its a solo

In reply to Calder:


Not if its normally treated as a route, no.

In reply to GrahamD:

I have different heads on with a solo and a lead with no gear.

Re: the original post. I would attempt a VS, 5a as a "VS Leader". I would think that it would have good gear??

In reply to Milesy:

... Right up until the point where you open your eyes and look at the route?

In reply to victim of mathematics:


Can you not grasp that despite its flexibility, the adjective grading system still sometimes just doesn't quite fit? Hence Yorkshire P grades?? Perhaps this is a classic VS 5a P3?

In reply to Calder:

Or read the guidebook

In reply to EeeByGum:

You are right, the grade doesn't say it all which is why guidebooks tend to have text as well

In reply to Calder:

No. When I approach a route with a leading head on it goes into its own zone that I can not get while soloing. I don't think I can really explain it further.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

As Offwidth says, a lot depends on the conditions. I've led and soloed Karabiner Slab several times but I walked past it recently because everything just seemed a bit humid and high gravity*. It is bold and, as you spotted, the gear is crap, so it does need to be perfect conditions at the grade.


*Shame I didn't pay more attention to my instincts because I then went on to fall off Slab and Arete!

In reply to Milesy:

Then you need to look at the route before you choose which head to put on, don't you.

In reply to GrahamD:

Yes, metres are bigger than you think, 6m is still the height of a house! I'm a wimp but I think that 3m is quite long way to jump off, even onto a pad.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I think your right - but I still think a lot of current micro routes are probably best thought of as boulder problems. Some of the longer problems at Font are far more 'route like' than some grit microroutes (even to the extent of being protectable) but noone would ever think to treat them as anything other than boulder problems.

There is a similar situation in places where routes are regularly DWS - their grades now reflect their normal mode of ascent (anyone still think of the Conger as E1 5c ?)

In reply to EeeByGum: According to my logbook I did it last year and "loved it". I do tend to find myself being drawn to bold aretes but it couldn't of been too bad otherwise I would of made a note of it in the log. From what I remember it was an unprotected crux low down then another move or two before reaching gear below the topout.

In reply to EeeByGum:

I don't really want to get drawn into a debate about the relative merits of P grades, as that was done to death on a thread a little while ago.

I will accept that the UK grading system doesn't tell you everything, but I don't see how you can seriously suggest that just a technical grade on its own is more informative than a technical and adjectival grade for an unprotected route. If this really is what you think then you're either an idiot or a troll (in which case you're an idiot anyway).

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Of course if a climb is 6 metres high you're never going to have to jump much more than 3.75 metres or so.

Still.

jcm

In reply to charley:

Agreed, AA is obviously VS and the OP is an idiot, although to be fair obviously a stubborn idiot.

Though of course some valid points can be made in the debate generally, even if they've all been made a million or so times before.

jcm

As well as the grade, I might read the description and use my eyes. I might compare it to other routes I've done before deciding to set off. I find they add up to quite a lot of useful information.

In reply to victim of mathematics:
>
>
>

Ignoring the mild abuse, I agree. However, there is precedent for only giving a tech grade - the CC do it in the Avon guide for a selection of unprotectable slab routes (up to about 10 m). I'm mot a fan. These routes are far too high and serious to be boulder problems, so they must be routes, albeit unprotected solos. Therefore, they should get a route grade.

As for the route in question, I don't really think the VS grade is wrong in the context of the crag, but equally a bouldering grade could be applied. I'm no fan of the P grades, but even so, I would think that AA would only be P2 really. It's a short route, and the gear arrives when your feet are at about 4 metres, at most.

Regardless of all this, the trad grade may lead you to believe one thing about the route when reading the guide in your own home, but as soon as you are standing beneath it, you can tell exactly what is in store for you. For that reason, I don't think the grade is inappropriate. I guess if we had a perfect highball grading system, this would be the best solution. But we don't.

In reply to GrahamD:

They should be described as highballs then rather than routes and use something like an 'H' rating which was mentioned on this site a while ago along with either a UK tech grade or a V-grade whichever is more appropriate, probably UK tech up to 5b/c and V grades above this.

So the route in question might get H1 5a whereas Remergence at Burbage might be H2 V4

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:


Remergence the boulder problem? Or remergence the route? Either way, I disagree that either of them is a highball.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Thanks for that. I used to have a bit of respect for you. Alas now all gone. Wouldn't the world be so dull if we were all like you and there was no banter or debate?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Always further for me of course...

In reply to Monk:

I was thinking of the route - didn't realise there was a BP also named Remergence. Either way it was more of an example of something harder rather than a serious attempt at grading it like that. That slab of Dawes' on Froggatt - Benign Lives is it? that might be better suited to a highball grade, sod all gear on it from what I remember (when walking past).

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

The boulder problem is the start to the route as far as the big horizontal crack. I think that benign lives is definitely a better example, as Remergence looks to be protectable with cams.

In reply to EeeByGum: Maybe you're just not a bold climber. Different people have different views on acceptable risk, and I don't think there's anything wrong with deciding that a particular route is outside those parameters.

Using the same criteria, I'm not a VS climber either, having backed off California Arete.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Just think how tall you might have been if you ate your greens as a kid Hope your Ok with that fall, presumabaly on the start?

I've been chest high on the top-out of a 6m problem before and cacking myself on the prospect of the sloping rounded finish, so JCM isn't right about 3.whatever m. Then there are routes/problems I would happily jump from 3m and others I'd be nervous at 1m given the landing. AA doesnt have the best of landings as I remember.

This is an amazing thread, particularly with such strong opinions from people who haven't even done the bloody route!

In reply to EeeByGum:

Several years ago a climbing partner of mine tried to lead it but backed off because it was too scary. In doing so he used me as a prop to reverse the first moves and scraped my arm against the rock.
I then proceeded to lead it with only the odd comment about the lack of gear.
When my partner followed up he said that he had "climbed it better than me"!
So, even though he couldn't lead it, it was easy VS for him on a top-rope.

In reply to Hephaestus:

This is clearly an interesting debate so why judge me based on the argument I put forward? My original idea was that since people tend to judge themselves based on the grade of the climbs they can do, climbs like the one mentioned in the OP sort of stick out like a sore thumb and somehow just don't quite grade right... in my opinion... (other opinions exist and are entirely valid)

In reply to EeeByGum:

It's all I've got to go on...

An anecdote: I did an E2 up on Dow Crag once, and it was very nice . Later in the day we were having a bit of a natter with other parties at the crag and talking about the route. A story came out that Ron Fawcett had failed on it, basically because he's got sausage fingers and couldn't facilitate a crucial swap of hands in a small pocket.

What I have taken from this: Basically that no-one has the right to expect success on any given route.

What I haven't taken from this: That Ron Fawcett is not an E2 climber.

And so, a little late and after a couple of facetious posts (apologies), I'd say that grades are a guide. You can never be certain from looking at a grade that you can complete a route. That certainty grows and becomes a reality as you climb, and probably that is what I like about climbing. If I wanted to know the outcome before I started I'd do something else.

And boldness is one of those parameters that guides how and what you can climb, like the size of your finger ends, flexibility, power etc.

In reply to Hephaestus:

Hesperus if my memory serves me well?

ALC

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes, thanks for asking. It was from the Proper Start, which is now really quite tricky, even when completely dry (which it wasn't). I thought I'd done it (just getting my foot in the top pocket) but somehow managed to very unexpectedly hit the ground (no pad). This is unusual behaviour for me.

From which I conclude I need to get out more and get my grade back up to Severe.

You've made me go and check now. The 1983 guide had it as HVS 5a, and the gnomic description 'This is is the unbelievable right-hand rib of the buttress'.

To quote wikipedia: 'Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims — especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims and the grades of certain climbs in the English Peak District — are unknown or unknowable.'

So there you have it. I take from this, you should expect some guidance on the difficulty from the guide, but not have the whole damn thing explained to you.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I fell off a severe just yesterday. I suspect it's a actually a dirty V1 5b though: dontcha love moorland grades!! (The Laurel and Hardy Murder Mystery at Standing Stones)

In reply to EeeByGum:

I climbed it a couple of years ago and thought it was stiff for VS. A 5a move at about 5m high before an easier move to the break and the first gear.

The move however was on positive holds, more strenuous than delicate and back off-able. It it was HVS 5a it would be a soft touch for the grade.

In reply to Jimbo C:

To put it into perspective, if it was HVS 5a it would be the same grade as Centurion or Moonraker.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Your memory's better than mine - couldn't remember the name for the life of me. It was next to The Shining Path.

Does that mean the story's true?

In reply to EeeByGum: The problem is that if this route was graded any harder the weak with the good heads would have a field day, did it a few years ago, a rather nice route

In reply to Hephaestus:

I got told the story in the early 1980s - don't know for sure if it's true - there were certainly some routes that Ron just couldn't do because of his sausage fingers. I think Dragon at Tremadoc is another.

ALC